Market & entreprenurship
are two sides of a coin
Justify by example

Shareholders of tesla recently expressed concerns that elon musk should give up some of his power on tesla's board by appointing two independent directors. which of the following is not a reason why elon musk is perceived to have significant power over tesla's board? 1. he is the founder of the firm and a successful entrepreneur, thus board members may be hesitant to challenge him.2. as the ceo and chairman of the firm he can easily determine what the board should discuss and how it should vote on strategic issues.3. all board members, except for kimbal, have been appointed to the board during elon's tenure.4. many of the firm's directors are outsider investment managers whose interests would not be aligned with those of firms' shareholders.

Suppose that a worker in agland can produce either 10 units of organic grain or 2 units of incense per year, and a worker in zenland can produce either 5 units of organic grain or 15 units of incense per year. there are 20 workers in agland and 10 workers in zenland. currently the two countries do not trade. agland produces and consumes 100 units of grain and 20 units of incense per year. zenland produces and consumes 50 units of grain and no incense per year. if each country made the decision to specialize in producing the good in which it has a comparative advantage, then the combined yearly output of the two countries would increase by a. 30 units of grain and 100 units of incense. b. 30 units of grain and 150 units of incense. c. 50 units of grain and 90 units of incense. d. 50 units of grain and 130 units of ince

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?